First of all, it's not that unusual for the inside of the manifold to be wet with gasoline in an MPFI engine. There's a lot more going on in there than we imagine. I have spent hours with carb cleaner getting the varnish off the inside of supposedly dry runners.
.
.
Third, if you can afford a hydraulic roller why wouldn't you go to that? You can get big lift with moderate duration. Now, everyone is going to pooh-pooh this suggestion, but I think you'd be really happy with a Hughes SER2226BL3-10. This is 222/226 duration at 0.050 and 0.514/0.520 lift. Your heads are already set up for this amount of lift although I am sure you'll have to change springs to control the heavier lifter.
.
.
I didn't realize that reversion would cause so much fuel way up to the TB.
In one of the Mopar magazines' test mule '67 R/T, they swapped their .509 for a Comp solid roller with, as I recall, around .550 lift, and less duration and a wider LSA than the .509. They said it idled smoother and pulled more vacuum at idle than the .509, but was a rocket. I've read that our roller lifters (solid or hydraulic) suffer from roller bearing failure when subjected to prolonged periods of idling, and then there's the whole bronze distributor drive and the maintenance requirement on it. I read extensively on roller cams about 5 years ago, and this information might be outdated now. That's another reason I did nothing - the roller sounded great except for those drawbacks, which I consider major. The added cost of a roller is not really an obstacle for me if roller is indeed the best choice, but those two items were a deal breaker for me. Now that it's 2016, I'm willing to consider some sort of roller again.
